I do not know if it is OK in the weblog world to copy text from another blog- but I just had to capture the following from Adam Curry's blog:
May I suggest there is another course of actioned that should be examined. The second amendment of the constitution provides for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The 'right to bear arms' has always been associated with gun-powder based firearms. Dictionary.com defines of 'arms' as: "1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms. "
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers meant arms in the broadest sense of the word, which is why the dictionary includes nuclear weapons, Intercontinental ballistic cruise missles and the like. Logically one can also include cyber-weapons, such as email-bombs and other destructive computer code.
Is the right to bear arms not also intended to protect citizens from its own government if the need arises? I fully believe this was part of the deal. Wow, imagine the NRA standing up for the right to bear cyber-arms!
It certainly seems to me that our security of a free state is at risk. Having just finished The Future of Ideas by Lawrence Lessig, I think that not only is the RIAA completely wrong, but that we have good cause to take up a wide variety of arms, including (but not neccesarily limited to) cyber-arms. We need to take our country back from the special interest groups, and the corporations.
